Εγκατάσταση Steam
Σύνδεση
|
Γλώσσα
简体中文 (Απλοποιημένα κινεζικά)
繁體中文 (Παραδοσιακά κινεζικά)
日本語 (Ιαπωνικά)
한국어 (Κορεατικά)
ไทย (Ταϊλανδικά)
Български (Βουλγαρικά)
Čeština (Τσεχικά)
Dansk (Δανικά)
Deutsch (Γερμανικά)
English (Αγγλικά)
Español – España (Ισπανικά – Ισπανία)
Español – Latinoamérica (Ισπανικά – Λατινική Αμερική)
Français (Γαλλικά)
Italiano (Ιταλικά)
Bahasa Indonesia (Ινδονησιακά)
Magyar (Ουγγρικά)
Nederlands (Ολλανδικά)
Norsk (Νορβηγικά)
Polski (Πολωνικά)
Português (Πορτογαλικά – Πορτογαλία)
Português – Brasil (Πορτογαλικά – Βραζιλία)
Română (Ρουμανικά)
Русский (Ρωσικά)
Suomi (Φινλανδικά)
Svenska (Σουηδικά)
Türkçe (Τουρκικά)
Tiếng Việt (Βιετναμικά)
Українська (Ουκρανικά)
Αναφορά προβλήματος μετάφρασης
Κανόνες συζητήσεων και οδηγίες
Αναφορά ανάρτησης
In both of those games, you are dealing with entirely fictional scenarios, but you are still having to adhere to the explicit rules and logic of those fictional matters. Managing heat and munition amounts in mechwarrior, managing shields and power in X-Wing. In both cases, the games follow the physics and realities of their fictional worlds as closely as they can.
That is why they can be called simulators. They are attempting to accurately portray those foreign environments, sticking to the internal logic of those fictional worlds and attempting to quantify it in a realistic, believable manner.
As opposed to AC, where there are no explanations made for the breaks in reality, and where basically everything aside from the superweapons and fictional planes, is based on earth physics and existing planes. Even the fictional superplanes all follow real world principles in their design, aside from the COFFIN system that things like the falken used, albeit even that is getting closer to reality these days.
There is a big difference between an arcade game about modern jets, and something doing simulation of nonexisting technology. At this point, you are the one trolling, given how badly you are purposefully missing what you are being told in favor of holding onto your delusions.
Tell me. Do you think there's a UAV that can turn 180° in less than a second IRL? Do you think there's a plane that can turn so rapidly like Mihaly IRL?
Real-life planes, including UAVs today like MQ-9, have G limitations. Having the plane to turn so rapidly at high speed can break the wings off. Imagine doing a high-G turn in A-10C. At speeds of around 300+ knots, it can rip its wings off. I've tried that before DCS:W exist, in a form of DCS: A-10C Warthog standalone program.
That's just one fact that distinguish Ace Combat with actual flight simulator. I get simulator games do not need to be realistic, but why bother having any game to be called a simulator if lacked on realistic counterparts? You want to call America's Army a combat simulator too? You want to call the Ultimate Ninja Storm 4 a close-quarters combat simulator too?
Try changing our minds if you're still delusional about this.
Nobody in the flight simming scene would accept this as a flight simulator.
The game industry doesn't matter if a label is correctly applied. They just want to sell games and they will call their products whatever they think will help them obtain the highest benefit.
You don't have an "arcade simulator", you have a "more or less complex game". When you reach a certain level of complexity, some flight simmers will start accepting that game as a simulator. Why do I know that? Because I've been into flight sims for many many years and I've seen how some products were never accepted by the community even though they were labeled "flight simulators" (Microsoft Flight was one of latest)
So, Ace Combat 7 as good a game as it is, is not a flight simulator. But that is not a problem. The game is good for what it is: a game about airplanes with a cheesy story and impossible flight dynamics. I think we all knew what we were getting when we paid for it. I did at least.
I like this game and I plan to finish it as I did with HAWX (which isn't a flight sim either) but make no mistake, when I want a flight simulator, I fire up DCS or Falcon BMS or FSX or P3D.
The good news is that you can both learn a flight simulator and play this game. Do it, and you'll get why people say this is not a sim.
- AC7 is an _Action_ Combat Flight Simulator
- DCS is an _Study_ Combat Flight Simulator
- Magic Carpet is an _Magic Carpet_ Combat Flight Simulator
- Flower is an _Flower_ Flight Simulator
- DragonStrike is a _Dragon_ Combat Flight Simulator
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1lpbBxImFM
You are arguening against facts because you don't like the facts. In your personal oppinion AC7 is not realistic enough to qualify as an legit flight simulator - turns out that's irrelevant for a game to belong to the genre.
I have not seen anybody argueing AC7 is a REALISTIC game. Because it is not. But it is definitely a SIMULATION game.
Ghost and goblins is an action-princess rescuing simulator.
Streets of rage is a non-study martial arts simulator.
Airheart would be a flight simulator too, there are planes involved.
That's absurd, of course. Because none of those games represents any reality in what they are showing. AC7 is also not real, even if the graphics trick you into thinking otherwise.
In AC7:
Flight dynamics are not realistic.
The use of weapons is not realistic.
Communications, tactics, systems, are non-existent (they're are just props).
Flight operations are also props to get you to the combat area.
AC7 is a shoot'em up in a 3D world.
Even in old games like F-19 (or F-117), F-16 Combat Pilot, or Strike Commander you had extra-lite systems you had to know and properly use in order to be able to fire a missile. Here you have NOTHING to care about. Just throttle up and start firing tens of missiles and bombs and everything.
Even if a simulator is not DCS or BMS level, there must be much more reality involved in it that what can be found in AC7 (I don't know the other titles in the franchise).
You can lie to yourself as much as you want but someday you'll have to assume that AC7 is just a glorified shoot'em up.
Please share scientific evidence like I did.
- The industry's perspective
- The community perspective
- The publishers perspective
And please get over the fact that it has to be real. It has not. Don't get me wrong I completely understand your reasoning. You are, of course, absolutely correct that AC7 is almost as simple as it can be. Still, as a video GAME, it belongs in the flight simulation category, because it simulates flying a jet. It does not matter how good or bad the simulation is at that point.
AC is a shoot them up. Nobody debates that. But it belongs to the flight simulator genre.
Also, please take note of the context of the discussion: Simulation GAMES.
AC7 is a flight simulation GAME. It is not, a FLIGHT SIMULATOR. This is: https://vrm.space
AC7 is a Video GAME. It belongs to the Flight Simulation GENRE. More specific, it is a Action/Arcade Combat Flight Simulation Game.
Now I don't care about your OPPINION in this context, try to inform yourself and deliver evidence or, ideally, proof if you want to falsify above statement.
Except you haven't provided any sort of valid evidence, and have COMPLETELY ignored the evidence provided to you, especially the definition of the word simulator and the general implications of it in the english language.
At this point, it seems like you either can't admit you are wrong, or don't know the english language well enough to be arguing it in the first place.
For real, you are placing 'industry perspective' and 'publisher perspective' as scientific evidence, despite the massive amounts of evidence that both parties lie about/misuse such things in order to abuse marketing. Let alone the fact that those are inherently opinions themselves and not objective statements of fact.
Edit: I forgot, you've also started magically failing to quote the people you are responding to and utterly failing to provide any sort of counterpoints to responses, aside from repeating yourself as if that is a well-reasoned argument, despite multiple people having pointed out the massive flaws in your logic and delusions.
I AM happy about that AC7 is available on PC. Yet I feel unbearable sadness when I witness the landscape where """hardcore PC gamers""" bash the game for every single lack of feature, which is nothing to do with the game's worth.
And I'm never going to accept what OP says as long as that guy treat me as the uneducated.
Hahaha, now that's an old wish we've been hoping for the past 20 years.
Consoles depend on exclusivity to EXIST and that's not changing any time soon.
Would you please quit your trolling and toxic behaviour? It has been perfectly established since the first second of this discussion that AC7 emphasises action/arcade gameplay and is in no way a realistic simulation of an actual fighter jet.
The fact that you cannot comprehend that a simulation game does not _neccesarily_ have to simulate something that exists in the real world in order to be categorized in that genre pushes you to your cognitive limits, and I am sorry for that. I truly am.
AC7 simulates you dreaming of beeing an ace fighter pilot in a made up completely overpowered fantasy fighter jet that defies the laws of physics. It has nothing to do with reality, but it's still kinda like as if you were there. And that's ok because it's fun. Which makes it a game. You get it now? No you don't. I'm should stop feeding the troll. But I can't... :)
Your statements here prove uncontestably, that you do not understand the word 'simulator', nor it's contextual associations in English.
If anyone here is being 'toxic' and 'trolling', it's you.